Who are allowing dissidents and who are not?
September 25, 2010 § Leave a comment
Are dissidents allowed in the society? In different groups, at work places and so on?
What is fundamentalism about? And schools and methods?
It has been election in Sweden. This has raised a lot of wonders… Not least on the fact that a party hostile towards foreigners got into the parliament.
Are parties allowing their members to be dissidents? What parties are and what parties are not?
What societies, groups, parties, belief systems and so on are more apt to allow dissidents? And who are less? I.e. are some better than others?
Came to think about the economists coming from the Chicago school? Paul Krugman has been writing about a professor (though not in economics but in law I think) in Chicago recently.
Is or has this school been allowing new thinking and in that case to what degree? To what degree have those economists changed their ideas with reagard to new evidence? I started to wonder if Chicago school economists are allowed to be dissidents? Maybe they are.
What schools, methods etc, are apt to allow new thinking, to call the fundamental, basic ideas on which the school or method is based on in question?
And the second thought could then be; where are the roots to fundamentalism of all sorts?
And what about a collective passivity?
The Swedish professor in religion psychology Owe Wikström has written about backleaning indifference in one of his books.
See (for instance) his blog posting “Att tala på prov” or a litle freely “Experimental talk”.
Earlier thought on being a searching human being, about not always being so certain (but some people need to be encouraged to be more certain and raise their voices instead of being silent/silenced?).
By the way, who ar being silenced and who are allowed to raise their voices and give expression to their thoughts, ideas and/or feelings? Who have the means and/or channels? And who don’t?
Can there even be grown up pepple who are so paralyzed (by experiences early in their lives) so they can’t speak up for themselves? Can there be people keeping silent out of shame (for being badly treated)? Does the power use these tendencies in some people and play on their readiness for feeling shame?
Or have we elimininated all these things in the society we live in today?
Unfortunately I don’t think so.
For instance there are a lot of bullies on the net, and among commentators on blogs and newspaper articles, sometimes scaring less abusive people off…
Can the demand on conformity be both overt and covert? Sometimes you don’t have to demand conformity at all (can it be so)? Meaning that in certain contexts people don’t have to fight for their beliefs? But at a certain point maybe those who didn’t have to fight earlier have to start fighting.
Are they then more inclined to accept dissidents and/or to listen to the counterpart? See the tea party movement in the USA for instance.
When it comes to the point are these less fundamentalistic and more accepting toward other peoples’ views and belief systems than their counterparts were (are)?
Maybe they are…